Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 77
271
Ayes
—
95
Noes
Passed · Government won
282 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 15 April 2026, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 77 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have required a government review of the cost and long-term financial sustainability of public sector pension schemes. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 271 votes to 95, meaning the amendment was removed from the Bill and the government's original text was preserved. **Why it matters**: Public sector pension schemes, which cover teachers, NHS workers, civil servants and other government employees, are largely "unfunded" arrangements, meaning they are paid from current taxation rather than from accumulated investment funds. Lords Amendment 77 sought to require an explicit review of the growing liabilities these schemes represent for taxpayers. By rejecting the amendment, the government has ensured no such statutory review will be required under this legislation. Supporters of the amendment argued that fiscal transparency and accountability demanded a clearer picture of long-term costs; opponents argued the amendment was unnecessary or an attempt to undermine confidence in public sector workers' retirement arrangements. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 264 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted with the government to reject the Lords amendment. Conservatives voted unanimously in favour of keeping it, joined by the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, one Reform UK MP and one Democratic Unionist Party MP. The Greens voted with the government. This division was one of several on the same day in which the Commons systematically disagreed with Lords amendments to the Bill, with five other related divisions all producing similar results in the 269-278 range for the government.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords' call for a review of public sector pension costs and sustainability, keeping the Bill as the government intended
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a review of public sector pension scheme costs and long-term sustainability, arguing greater transparency is needed about taxpayer liabilities
366 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 282 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
239
0
123
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
85
31
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
25
0
17
Independent
3
1
9
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
4
5
Reform UK
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
1
0
—
Defends the reserve power on asset allocation as a necessary backstop to overcome collective action problems preventing diverse investment, but limits it to 10% qualifying assets and 5% UK assets to align with Mansion House accord; opposes most Lords amendments as unnecessary or undermining policy intent.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,240 words) →
Argues the mandation power is fundamentally wrong in principle—pensions belong to savers, not the state—and that the government is seizing a £400bn piggybank for ideological purposes; calls for removal of the reserve power entirely.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,051 words) →
Warns that regulatory intervention to mandate pension investment repeats a 30-year error of gradually shifting from equities to bonds, weakening economic growth and intergenerational wealth transfer; opposes mandation on principle.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,546 words) →
Opposes mandation as state interference antithetical to free market principles; supports limited government guidance but not direction of pension investments; will vote against government amendments on mandation.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (746 words) →
Criticizes the Bill for failing to address pre-1997 pension indexation injustice affecting nearly 1 million pensioners; argues surplus extraction should not proceed until this long-standing wrong is remedied.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,027 words) →
Defends the asset allocation changes as aligned with Mansion House accord; dismisses scaremongering about government theft of pensions; supports the Bill and presses government on pre-1997 indexation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (572 words) →
Argues Lords amendments preventing direction of pension investment away from fossil fuels and unethical assets are too restrictive; calls for binding targets to phase out thermal coal and arms manufacturers from pension funds.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,004 words) →
Objects to the reserve power on principle—pension decisions should rest with trustees, not ministers; supports Lords amendments to strip out asset allocation requirements and require transparency on public sector pension affordability.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (680 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0